Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Thursday April 07, 2011 @03:20PM
from the public-domain-considered-harmful dept.

airfoobar submitted an editorial by Bernt Hugenholtz. From the article "Bad news from Denmark. According to an official press release, the Danish government has changed its position and now endorses the European Commission's proposal to extend the term of protection for sound recordings. Since Denmark was part of a fragile blocking minority in the European Council, there is a danger now that the EU Presidency will try to push through the proposal within a matter of weeks."

Did you look at the date of the press release? February 24th 2011. It is more than a month ago, and so far very little has been in the Danish media on the subject. Something is indeed rotten...

Well, did you take the time to write a letter in a newspaper ?
- It's not fair to cry about the lack of public debate if you're not willing to start it..
And unfortunately we can't expect politicians to hang out on slashdot...

Anyway, are we doing anything about this? do politicians even know that we care? Perhaps we (Danish slashdot users) should do something... ideas?

Did you look at the date of the press release? February 24th 2011. It is more than a month ago, and so far very little has been in the Danish media on the subject. Something is indeed rotten...

Well, did you take the time to write a letter in a newspaper ?
- It's not fair to cry about the lack of public debate if you're not willing to start it..
And unfortunately we can't expect politicians to hang out on slashdot...
Anyway, are we doing anything about this? do politicians even know that we care? Perhaps we (Danish slashdot users) should do something... ideas?

I'd start by finding out which specific politicians are responsible for this and, more importantly, what means were used to convince them to change their minds. Follow the money back to whatever organization bribed them and then shout it from the rooftops. Embarrass the hell out of them.

No slur intended upon your government, by the way. I'm American, and our political leaders sold themselves (and us) down the river some time ago. So whenever I hear that the content industry has won another round, I have

Oh so people are supposed to write to newspapers proposing news items that ought to be covered?What is this, soviet russia?Journalists ought to be able to judge the impact of what the agencies report and find a place for significant items.

Since copyright infringement lands you in jail, altering the terms of what can be under copyright is important news.

Humanity's single greatest embarrassment is their complete incompetence at self-governance.

And here I thought it was religion, given the fact that the majority of mankind believes in an imaginary all-powerful entity that cares what they do and then bothers to punish or reward them based on whether they follow different sets of rules based on which particular flavour of superstition a given individual subscribes to.

At the very least religion seems to make for effective conditioning in that healthy skepticism and logical reasoning don't appear to be valued by society at large (at least in the US). Alas, questioning authority is frowned upon by a sizable portion of the population.

Absolutely! After all, how are his descendants ever benefit from his work if it wasn't copyrighted for several hundred years. I am *damn* sure that Shakespeare would never have written anything if he believed that his great- great- great- great- great- great- great- granchildren would have to get off their arses and earn a living like the rest of us.

Parliament almost two years ago, the proposal has stalled in the Council, facing fierce opposition from a bloc of mainly Northern and Eastern European countries. Why Denmark has deserted this blocking minority is unclear.

The Northern and Eastern European countries are the ones where bribery is not endemic. It looks as though someone in Denmark has just gone the way of the southern countries...

Well what motivation would they have to create if they couldn't be assured that their ancestors will be able to make money off of it until the heat-death of the universe? It takes a long time for artists to make their money back you know. Do you expect them to turn a profit within just a decade or two? Don't forget the poor starving record companies need to get their 80-97% cut first, and what would artists do without them in this age of dirt-cheap digital distribution and viral marketing?

Yes, in fact, I prefer things young. Like, meat. I like my ham to be well under a decade old; it has a funny taste to it after 70 years. Even 4 years old is a huge stretch for me. Or dogs, I'm not sure I'd go for a 12 year old dog, or a 25 year old one; maybe 1-2 years, 3 or 4 if I find a used one at a shelter somewhere. I am definitely not into the resale of children; I dislike children actually, but if I were to have one of my own it would have to be rather fresh, in fact brand new, probably make my

I don['t recall having tried that particular method, but Johnathon Swift had some rather good recipes that at the very least work wonderfully for Irish children. I would recommend trying all of them out before one makin a blanket statement about not liking children.

Your rant is a little over the top, but I honestly believe the reason most record company execs don't want to give up control of the advertising and distribution of music is that with direct artist to consumer sales, these aging has-beens would no longer have any chance whatsoever of getting blowjobs from aspiring Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake wanna-bes. I don't think it's about economics, and the marketing of prefab boy bands preteen female vocalists can't possibly make economic sense -- their audie

Despite being offered by an AC, his point actually merits serious consideration. He's right -- we're slipping further and further back, and no right-thinking people actually do anything to counteract these terrible laws. Does nobody care?

At some point, a person should stand before a legislative committee dealing with copyright term extensions - pick a country where these discussions are happening, any one - and ask just how many more term extensions will be granted, or whether copyright terms will be made permanent de jure, not just de facto.

That was sort of what they tried in the US with Eldred v. Ashcroft, but it failed. The "nice" thing about doing copyright extensions with a finite creep each time is that it stays de jure finite while it is de facto infinite, so the people doing it never have to show their true intent as they stay within the letter of the law.

Disney really takes the Micky (pun intended) with copyright terms. Most of their animated films are based on public domain stories - Snow White, Alladin, The Little Mermaid, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Alice in Wonderland etc. Those bastards love using public domain material without ever wanting to contribute back to it.

I say fuck 'em. I'll respect their copyrights when they respect the public domain.

I recently moved to Denmark. But the first thing that popped into my mind when reading this, was indeed to go outside and shout "Dansk jävlaaaaar!!!!". I don't think my neighbours will like me after that, though:)

"But I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; If I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am responsible for everything I do."
("The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", 1966)

1) Laws and the penalties associated with breaking them.2) Morality, either respecting the right or content owners or the principle of rule of law.

These ever extending periods, and obstruction of legal rights through DRM and laws that prevent the removal of DRM for backup or shifting to a new media format, makes increasingly difficult to justify abstaining from piracy out of respect for content owners. As it stands I have to hit torrents if I want to back

Remember how spain was to push a draconian penalty system for filesharers, until through wikileaks it came out that u.s. government was heavily bullying and threatening spanish government to pass the bill. And when this hit the news, spanish assembly unanimously turned down the filth that originated from u.s.

I dont even suspect - im sure that there is same kind of play at work here. A government which was against what private interests in the dirtiest, rotten country of the world, switches stance out of the blue.

Probably the most powerful counterargument is that exclusive rights in sound recordings are granted for a reason. The prospect of a temporary legal monopoly acts as an incentive for the industry to invest in recording and distributing sound recordings. Logically, the term of protection should therefore be just long enough for record companies to recoup these investments.

That's the US reasoning. In Europe, control of their creations is viewed as an intrinsic right of artists and creators. Furthermore, any argument you make from the American point of view is going to be met by the deep-seated European conviction that there is no art or culture in the US that's worth protecting anyway so Americans should just keep out of these discussions. If you want to convince Europeans, you need to come up with a different argument. But, frankly, between European attitudes, corporate lobbying, and policy laundering, you might as well talk to a wall.

(Remember that the current copyright insanity originated in Europe with the Berne convention; the US refused to comply for a long time, but finally gave in in the 1970's.)

Pink Floyd's music is not art? Terry Pratchett's books are not art?!? Picasso's paintings are not art?!? Stanley Kubrick's films are not art?!?

WTF?!?

I know (probably) what you mean, but among the trash entertainment there are the gems that still make big profits and are GREAT art. On the other hand, your rule will work 9 out of 10 times, so you are probably right. Oh well..

Don't forget that we dont really have "copyright" in the sense the USA defines it in europe.

In Europe we have moral rights, or author rights, and al the laws around it are completely different than the US versions.

E.g. a contract like this:a) All rights to this work, including translation, adaption and derivation and any future distribution on new media (yet to discover) are transfered with here in to Company X.b) Company X pays Mr. Y a one time fee of $10.000... would be completely legal in the USA.

Supposedly, copyright is meant to encourage "innovation." I don't see how extending the length of the copyright beyond the author's death (the one who is supposed to innovate and create new works) just so the family members can leech off of his/her work is helping with that. With a house, there's no need to hand it over to other people. That won't really accomplish anything. But with copyright, it gives others a chance to innovate (supposedly) after you're gone.

Well, if I own a house... and die... my family will own it until the universe gets cold or they sell it. No one asks if it is fair that they own it still 100 years after I'm dead.

AC had some good points. The key thing is that ownership of property is not governed by the same laws as copyright protected works; the analogy is inherently useless. One may as well claim that drivers licences can't be passed on to the next generation, so wealth too should expire on death.

Copyright is the state granting the owner of a work exclusive publishing rights for a set period of time, with some exceptions to allow others to reproduce parts of the work under specific circumstances. With each extensi

That's the US reasoning. That's the US reasoning. In Europe, control of their creations is viewed as an intrinsic right of artists and creators.

Sure, and that actually is the way it is here. You are granted copyright at the moment of creation, and it is yours unless you explicitly transfer that right. Furthermore, the idea that a temporary monopoly encourages the production of creative works was something that our Founders debated at some length. Jefferson, in particular, was no fan of copyright, but commercial interests won out even then.

What has happened, so far as the music industry is concerned, is that a bunch of (largely foreign owned) cor

It is disingenuous to characterize this as solely an American problem, that we're somehow the cause of all of this. The reality is, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, the Audio Home Recording Act, and a number of other rotten laws, were put in place by the likes of the RIAA at the behest of both domestic (Disney, et al) and foreign entities (Sony and Bertelsmann to name a few.) Essentially, Europe's corporate powers corrupted our copyright system, effectively conscr

30 years is sufficient, for two reasons. First, 30 years is sufficient time for an artist to receive payment, for most of his working career, as a result of some artistic production he created. Second, 30 years is long enough that the "net present discounted value" (at a 5% discount rate) of anything after 30 years is negligible. As a result, record companies will not make investments or produce anything or change their investment behavior now because of payments to be received after 30 years in the future.

Remember that intellectual property is not "property" in the normal sense. It cannot be stolen, for example, but only copied. Intellectual property is a construct, whereby the producers of intellectual content can be compensated for their labor. 30 years is enough time for people to be compensated for their labor, and is longer than the investment horizon of companies.

If your father happend to become a multi billonair, ofc you are "payed" from the interest his fortune generates.

You can still do this if your father was a multimillionaire based upon artistic recordings (ie The Beatles) and passed the money on to you. If we extend copyright too far then the heirs get their monetary inheritance and interest plus current income based upon the sale of work. It is the latter which I'm arguing against here.

While your post has a lot of sense: a hugh amount of/. posters who are o

Invention and usefull art or what ever is under copyright is "scarce" as well, or why do you want to get it for free? Obviously you can not create it yourself.

Your analogy is utterly misguided.

Your analogy is misguided as well. If I can inherit my fathers wineberg. Why can't I inherit the rights to his last song, book, idea etc? Especially if they are perhaps unpublished?I mean what is from your point of view the difference whether I find his "p

Yes you should be able to inherit *active* copyrights or unpublished works owned by your father. In the case of the latter, if copyright has expired then just alter the works sufficiently to create a work that would in itself qualify for copyright protection. This is how people can hold a copyright on a reproduction of The Art of War.

If an opera only becomes popular after death, or if a song only becomes popular when it's out of copyright protection then that's just hard luck or poor planning. The onus is o

I would go with 30 years except for the case where someone is profiting from your work (e.g. selling it in either digital or hardcopy form). In this case I think the author should receive a cut but this expires on the original author's death.

OK, I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but can anyone tell me how this could be justified? Using U.S. copyright as an example, the first law to grant copyright was enacted in 1790 and secured an artist with 14 years of protection and one 14-year extension if the artist was still alive. It is important to note that during this time, reproduction of the copyrighted work was extremely difficult. The phonograph would not be invented for another 100 years which means that copyright essentially boiled dow

With such better means of distribution, how can we justify periods of copyright law that extend far beyond the average lifetime of the musician who created the works?

Easy: In the government of man, he who has the gold makes the rules. The movie studios, through their ownership of television news media [pineight.com], control who gets chosen in the primary elections. They play up Hollywood's favorite candidate (e.g. Barack Obama and John McCain) and don't let anyone proposing real change (e.g. Ron Paul) get a word in edgewise at the debates.

Seriously, retroactive copyright extension is the biggest bullshit imaginable. I could sorta understand and deal with laws making the copyright on new works longer, but the way it is now, we'll forever leave locked up all culture since basically Steamboat Willie was published. Even today, works created the day I was born will not enter public domain till after I die. I'll never see any mu